• DAILY MAIL: Smoking or being stressed during pregnancy can increase chances of baby being gay
    108 replies, posted
It also seems like a terrible way to turn people into punching bags. "Well, this person is gay because of an out-of-control mother. It's her fault."
I like to think that every week the writers all just sit around a large desk and think of the most unbelievable stories they can 'report on' first.
[video=youtube;5eBT6OSr1TI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI[/video]
Most retarded article of 2014.
Maybe, just maybe this will have the positive effect of stopping at least a few women who read it smoking whilst pregnant, even if the reason is wrong.
[QUOTE=thisispain;43602416]implying drinking and smoking has genetic repercussions in the first place is kinda a big deal. if you can tell me the genetic process by which smoking modifies your genome into some kind of non-cancerous mutation and tell me the genetic process by which that genetic mutation influences a social identity then it might sound less ridiculous [b]keep in mind[/b] this article has nothing to do with genetics. its talking about smoking affecting hormones and secreting harmful substances to the carried child. it's a huge leap[/QUOTE] It's well-documented that womb environment can influence gene expression. You don't need mutation to have an explanation that includes genetics. It could be that gene X does not cause homosexuality in a vacuum, but combined with alcohol in utero it does. That way, homosexuality would be heritable given alcohol abuse. Also, it's a red herring to talk about homosexuality as if it's just a social identity. Sexual and romantic attraction does not happen because society deems it; evolution would not leave [B]the fundamental mechanism of mate selection[/B] to environmental chance. [quote]In his book, We Are Our Brains, he writes: ‘Although it’s frequently assumed that development after birth also importantly affects our sexual orientation, [B]there’s no proof of this whatsoever.[/B][/quote] Crank detected. [quote]A 2010 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[9] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences), while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker, but significant effect. Women showed a statistically non-significant trend to weaker influence of hereditary effects, while men showed no effect of shared environmental effects. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results; [quote]Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[9][/quote][/quote]
[QUOTE=Dr. Haxx;43602750]Most retarded article of 2014.[/QUOTE] The ride hasn't even started.
[QUOTE=thisispain;43602196]sexuality isnt a specific thing. gay and straight wouldn't even exist if they weren't societal concepts in the first place, which is how it is in other parts of the world. the less a society stresses gender roles and sexual difference the more pansexual the people become. and on the subject of "predetermined" sexuality is predetermined in the same way every single human behavior is predetermined. we get our cues on what we can desire in the first place from society, everything i can possibly desire was predetermined by birth.[/QUOTE]Just what exactly are you basing all of this on?
[QUOTE=thisispain;43602196]i think its really not interesting at all as a discussion sexuality isnt a specific thing. gay and straight wouldn't even exist if they weren't societal concepts in the first place, which is how it is in other parts of the world. [B]the less a society stresses gender roles and sexual difference the more pansexual the people become.[/B][/quote] Do you have a single fact to back that up? [quote]and on the subject of "predetermined" sexuality is predetermined in the same way every single human behavior is predetermined. we get our cues on what we can desire in the first place from society, everything i can possibly desire was predetermined by birth.[/QUOTE] Uh no? What we desire comes out of gene-environment interactions, and a hefty dose of chance. We enjoy the taste of sugar because it's pretty much hardwired, and we enjoy different types of music mostly because of our peer group.
[url=http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx]The Royal College of Psychiatrists[/url]: [quote]Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Bell and Weinberg, 1978). It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.[/quote] [URL="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.long"]American Academy of Pediatrics[/URL]: [quote]A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed.5 Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.2 In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. The high concordance of homosexuality among monozygotic twins and the clustering of homosexuality in family pedigrees support biological models. There is some evidence that prenatal androgen exposure influences development of sexual orientation, but postnatal sex steroid concentrations do not vary with sexual orientation. The reported association in males between homosexual orientation and loci on the X chromosome remains to be replicated. Some research has shown neuroanatomic differences between homosexual and heterosexual persons in sexually dimorphic regions of the brain.5 Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.4,5 Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43603281][url=http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx]The Royal College of Psychiatrists: [url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.long]American Academy of Pediatrics[/url]:[/QUOTE] I don't take 0.35 heritability to be "high concordance of homosexuality among monozygotic twins". Homo[I]phobia[/I] is more heritable than that. Otherwise yes, this is a decent summary of the current level of knowledge.
[QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603162][QUOTE]A 2010 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[9] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific [B]environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and [I]sexual experiences[/I])[/B], while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker, but significant effect. Women showed a statistically non-significant trend to weaker influence of hereditary effects, while men showed no effect of shared environmental effects. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results; [/QUOTE][/QUOTE] Because that doesn't imply a mixing of causality at all... "When people had sex with others of the same gender, they became gay!" There are elements of that category that makes up such a large portion that come as choice which were probably chosen because the person was gay, not which caused them to develop into a homosexual. That group needed to be broken down a bit more.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;43603374]Because that doesn't imply a mixing of causality at all... "When people had sex with others of the same gender, they became gay!" There are elements of that category that makes up such a large portion that come as choice which were probably chosen because the person was gay, not which caused them to develop into a homosexual. That group needed to be broken down a bit more.[/QUOTE] When they say "explanation" it doesn't necessarily mean causality. More like "variable X explains Y percent of the variance in outcomes". You're right though, the causation could run either way. There might even be a feedback loop of some kind.
[QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603162]It's well-documented that womb environment can influence gene expression. You don't need mutation to have an explanation that includes genetics.[/QUOTE] gene expression is a very different thing from what we are talking about. to say there's some gene that is expressed more strongly by exposure to an outside substance makes a whole lot of assumptions on things we cannot prove. just the idea that homosexuality has a genetic factor is flimsy at best, its a hypothesis. [QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603162]It could be that gene X does not cause homosexuality in a vacuum, but combined with alcohol in utero it does. That way, homosexuality would be heritable given alcohol abuse.[/QUOTE] im adverse to making genetic assumptions like that [QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603162]Also, it's a red herring to talk about homosexuality as if it's just a social identity. Sexual and romantic attraction does not happen because society deems it; evolution would not leave [B]the fundamental mechanism of mate selection[/B] to environmental chance.[/QUOTE] evolution has very little to do with social abstractions. [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] lets play the game of how long sir galton will last this time [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603239]Uh no? What we desire comes out of gene-environment interactions, and a hefty dose of chance. [/QUOTE] is it a requirement of evo-psych proponents to completely dismiss sociology?
[QUOTE=thisispain;43603411]gene expression is a very different thing from what we are talking about. to say there's some gene that is expressed more strongly by exposure to an outside substance makes a whole lot of assumptions on things we cannot prove. just the idea that homosexuality has a genetic factor is flimsy at best, its a hypothesis.[/quote] Of course, but given our state of knowledge we can rank hypotheses in order of likelihood. Genes will play a role, as they do in every trait. I agree with you that a straightforward causal genetic explanation is very unlikely. Natural selection would [I]strongly[/I] select against such a thing for obvious reasons, and no amount of kin selection would overcome the base reduction in reproductive fitness. [quote]im adverse to making genetic assumptions like that evolution has very little to do with social abstractions.[/quote] I'm not making an assumption, I'm just providing an example. If anything, you're the one making an unfounded assumption, by saying that natural selection has nothing to do with it. Do you think "social abstractions" exist in a vacuum, where evolution cannot touch them? [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;43603411]is it a requirement of evo-psych proponents to completely dismiss sociology?[/QUOTE] What? I'm not dismissing sociology, where did you get that from? Why the hostility?
Why do you immediately attribute sexual orientation to being a social concept? That's assuming a truth that has not been proven. (And is rather something related to whether it is biological of social to begin with. It's circular reasoning, you're using the conclusion you are trying to reach as part of your argument for why you reached the conclusion.) [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603449]Why the hostility?[/QUOTE]That's just what he does.
[QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603449] I'm not making an assumption, I'm just providing an example. If anything, you're the one making an unfounded assumption, by saying that natural selection has nothing to do with it. Do you think "social abstractions" exist in a vacuum, where evolution cannot touch them?[/QUOTE] no i'm saying there's a very strong difference between evolutionary factors such as sexual selection and such and homosexual identity which is a fairly new thing. in Greece and Rome for example male homosexual desire had a very different function in society and the concept of non-fluid binary sexuality didn't really exist. the prevailing concepts instead were virility and dominance. you can do an evolutionary reading of that if you want, but it's kind of outside of the scope of what i was saying. [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603449] What? I'm not dismissing sociology, where did you get that from? Why the hostility?[/QUOTE] an old grudge; but im very stupidly assuming that i know who you are lol [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43603474]Why do you immediately attribute sexual orientation to being a social concept? That's assuming a truth that has not been proven. (And is rather something related to whether it is biological of social to begin with. It's circular reasoning, you're using the conclusion you are trying to reach as part of your argument for why you reached the conclusion.)[/QUOTE] heh? surely you can't deny that sexual orientation is a social concept? it might not be exclusively a social concept but it definitely is a social concept.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43603474]Why do you immediately attribute sexual orientation to being a social concept? That's assuming a truth that has not been proven. (And is rather something related to whether it is biological of social to begin with. It's circular reasoning, you're using the conclusion you are trying to reach as part of your argument for why you reached the conclusion.) [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] That's just what he does.[/QUOTE] i feel like sexual orientation is largely a social concept/construct due to how fluid societies have been in regards to different sexualities. in ancient rome they didn't even have the concept of homo or hetero sexuality, they instead had the concepts of submissive and dominant when it came to sexuality
That proves nothing other than how their society viewed sexuality.
oh what the crap i thought i read your post thisispain but i still just repeat something you say?
[QUOTE=thisispain;43603485]no i'm saying there's a very strong difference between evolutionary factors such as sexual selection and such and homosexual identity which is a fairly new thing. in Greece and Rome for example male homosexual desire had a very different function in society and the concept of non-fluid binary sexuality didn't really exist. the prevailing concepts instead were virility and dominance. you can do an evolutionary reading of that if you want, but it's kind of outside of the scope of what i was saying.[/quote] [quote]heh? surely you can't deny that sexual orientation is a social concept? it might not be exclusively a social concept but it definitely is a social concept.[/QUOTE] I think we're talking at cross-purposes. The social identity homosexuals will indeed vary by culture, but their proximate causes are all the same - the guy is attracted to the same sex. Parsimony suggests there is a single causal mechanism (or cluster of causal mechanism) for this for the entire human race, and not separate causes for separate cultures. In this context, an evolutionary/genetic explanation is germane.
[QUOTE=thisispain;43603485]in Greece and Rome for example male homosexual desire had a very different function in society and the concept of non-fluid binary sexuality didn't really exist. the prevailing concepts instead were virility and dominance. you can do an evolutionary reading of that if you want, but it's kind of outside of the scope of what i was saying.[/QUOTE]That doesn't really show much though. That could easily be sexuality responding to society as it is society responding to sexuality. How they view and interpret sexuality is entirely social, but where said sexuality comes from is the point of debate here.
like i think when it comes to sexuality it's like that kinsey thing or whatever, everyones just various degrees of bisexuality, and it's society that suppresses or expresses that. so that's why bisexuality was so common in macedonia/ancient greece due to the lack of stigma against it and then once societies began to demonize homosexual relationships gays & bisexuals were far less common
[QUOTE=thisispain;43603485]an old grudge; but im very stupidly assuming that i know who you are lol [/QUOTE]This part, however, I have a feeling we made the same assumption.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43603546]That doesn't really show much though. That could easily be sexuality responding to society as it is society responding to sexuality. How they view and interpret sexuality is entirely social, but where said sexuality comes from is the point of debate here.[/QUOTE] yeah i guess that's true too, like, during more socially conservative times i guess there isn't necessarily less gays or bi's, just more people in the closet
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43603514]i feel like sexual orientation is largely a social concept/construct due to how fluid societies have been in regards to different sexualities. in ancient rome they didn't even have the concept of homo or hetero sexuality, they instead had the concepts of submissive and dominant when it came to sexuality[/QUOTE] Sure, their concepts were different, but that doesn't mean that they were the [I]true causes of the behavior.[/I] They may have been rationalizations after the fact, we don't know. My point is that the ideas of masculinity and dominance didn't necessarily cause the behavior, the behavior may have caused the ideas. (An interesting corollary is prison homosexuality/rape, which is indeed about power and/or sexual gratification. The reason I don't think this explanation actually applies to the Graeco-Roman world is that the men weren't in a condition of being starved for sexual gratification in a purely male environment. If it was really about displaying dominance, why go to the trouble of sex with men when they had (ahem) perfectly good slave girls?)
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43603555]like i think when it comes to sexuality it's like that kinsey thing or whatever, everyones just various degrees of bisexuality, and it's society that suppresses or expresses that. so that's why bisexuality was so common in macedonia/ancient greece due to the lack of stigma against it and then once societies began to demonize homosexual relationships gays & bisexuals were far less common[/QUOTE]Ohh, this is almost definitely true. Near as I'm aware, there is a wealth of evidence showing bisexuality is more common than strict adherence to hetero- or homosexuality. (In fact, it may be more common than the two combined, but I'm not certain on that part.)
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43603538]That proves nothing other than how their society viewed sexuality.[/QUOTE] ultimately the point is that homosexuality as an identity is a fairly new thing and to say it has genetic factors undermines the fact that historically human civilisation hasnt had this differentiation of sexual orientation as for example in Asia, specifically China, for a very long time bisexuality was the norm. refer to my original post: "sexuality isnt a specific thing." i dont think there's such a thing as a gay gene. i could be totes wrong and we find that yes there's a genetic expression for sexual desire towards something specifically of the opposite gender, but that would raise more questions about the nature of sexual identity and gender.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43603565]yeah i guess that's true too, like, during more socially conservative times i guess there isn't necessarily less gays or bi's, just more people in the closet[/QUOTE]Yeah. We can even observe this readily today. There was an article on here a year or so ago about how a town here in the South-East reported that it had no gay people whatsoever, when it definitely should have. And further investigation showed that those who lived there were heavily closeted because of just how conservative the town was.
[QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603568]Sure, their concepts were different, but that doesn't mean that they were the [I]true causes of the behavior.[/I] They may have been rationalizations after the fact, we don't know. My point is that the ideas of masculinity and dominance didn't necessarily cause the behavior, the behavior may have caused the ideas. (An interesting corollary is prison homosexuality/rape, which is indeed about power and/or sexual gratification. The reason I don't think this explanation actually applies to the Graeco-Roman world is that the men weren't in a condition of being starved for sexual gratification in a purely male environment. If it was really about displaying dominance, why go to the trouble of sex with men when they had (ahem) perfectly good slave girls?)[/QUOTE] actually male on male rape was a fairly large thing in those days, like, when a city was pillaged apparently men had just as much risk of being raped by soldiers as women and they had specific roman laws to protect men who had been raped
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.